User talk:Vitreology/Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

 * Agree, many thanks for your efforts expanding this article, as one with a fondness for the south island's counterpart North island (Tasmania) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks Tom. Which part of the Northern Southern land are you from? This is my first attempt at an A-grade article. Also, what's your medical speciality? (you seem to have them all covered!)Jkokavec (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Smooth Island
Hello, Thank you for your message. The article Smooth Island (Tasmania) already looks pretty good. As I have no experience of assessing A-class articles I can only suggest that you study the A-Class criteria and look at the history of A-class articles in the WP Islands and WP Australia.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm probably contacting you the wrong way - I looked for a link that would let me contact you but there wasn't. You mentioned that I had introduced errors by editing that thing about phakia. I was just curious as to what you thought I said was wrong. The only reason I'm asking is because I thought the article looked perfect after I did my editing, and my Step 3 exam is in 2 days, so now I'm being paranoid and starting to think that there might be some concept I don't understand.

I know this is random, but I stumbled upon that wikipedia article because I was doing a uWorld question where an HIV+ pt presented with disseminated candidiasis that had spread to his eye. I chose the option "Vitrectomy + Ketoconazole". I got it wrong. Uworld didn't really explain why my answer was incorrect. According to uworld, the treatment should have been "Vitrectomy + Amphotericin". Would you happen to know why I was wrong by any chance? Thanks in advance (and thanks for catching my mistake on that article) Boonshofter (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

- Hi, the issue was that excluding any mention of 'phakia' (or another plain english variation) does not stress that nuclear sclerosis can only occur in the crystalline lens. A layperson isn't expected to realise this, but at least I allowed them to find out what 'phakia' means by clicking on the link. Anyway, no biggie. - Short answer to your question is that Ketoconazole is not available as an intravitreal injection. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/754887_5) (http://www.eophtha.com/eophtha/Pharmacology/Ketoconazole.html#.Vb9bt26qoSV) - In a HIV patient with disseminated candidiasis, you're probably want a systemic antifungal (ie, something like oral ketoconazole) and in addition you'd want to do a vitrectomy and add amphotericin intra-operatively (an antifungal which comes as an intravitreal preparation). In case they ask, liposomal amphotericin is better that standard amphotericin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19275278). - Please see this link for why ketaconazole may not be suitable for intravitreal injection: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Eybg7fbs65MC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=azole+intravitreal+toxicity&source=bl&ots=gES6LDndxv&sig=SseEVgeFjTkVqIzPQf1yJ2j5138&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCWoVChMI5s_n9fOMxwIVxyOmCh2X5Qnb#v=onepage&q=azole%20intravitreal%20toxicity&f=false

- Hope that helps! Cheers, Jkokavec (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much for both explanations - you rock! makes a lot of sense. Also, the links you gave me are perfect. thank you! :)

Boonshofter (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

CSF
Hi Jkokavec just wondered what the category Reference intervals you added means? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Iztwoz. It means that it is a page which specifies a Reference_range, or an approximately 'normal' or 'expected' value, for a biological substance. As reference ranges are so important in science and medicine, I'm planning on going through the various fluid types (eg, serum, CSF, urine, synovial fluid, etc) and making sure all the reference intervals (ie, reference ranges) are up to date. Cheers, Jkokavec (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that --Iztwoz (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 (&#39;Garden Island makes a winning work&#39;).png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 (&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Examiner p4 23-1-15.pdf listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Examiner p4 23-1-15.pdf, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the use of tables in Vitreous body
Still not sure about the use of tables... going to see what other editors think about this. Have put a request for comment (WP:RfC) here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Vitreous body
Have finally got around to giving it some good attention. Would be good to get a hand to help with text, citations and lead. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you Tom. Jkokavec (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Vision Research Institute of Australia
Hello Jkokavec,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged National Vision Research Institute of Australia for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 copy edit of History of Smooth Island
I did some copy edit on History of Smooth Island (Tasmania) at the request of. That user's talk page redirected here, the account of the article's main contributor (98.8%), so I figure this must be the right place.

Let me first say that I appreciate the amount of research that went into writing the article. I have some concerns, though, that it may be going into too much detail rather than summarizing the most important points of the subject. I feel there's some leeway as this is the history of... article rather than the main article on Smooth Island. But still, some of the biographical details may not be that important to the history of the island, and the many quoted sections could probably be pared down.

As an example, I paraphrased the transcribed survey report of James Erskine Calder, providing what I took to be the most important points (and putting the "original document" links in refs). This brought it from 700 words to about 140 words, which generally makes things easier for the reader. I tried to do similarly with the presumed death of Chris Wellard, which had a few long quoted sections. I don't mind if you want to revert this in whole or in part.

Having said this, I feel the article is a solid B-class. The excessive detail may have to be addressed if moving to Good Article status. But when you're building an article, you can't always judge what's relevant and what isn't until you have all the information down. It's much better to be too thorough and pare it down than to have incomplete coverage of the topic.

Here are some specific notes from my copy edit: Sorry for being long-winded. I hope this is of help. Please do contact me if you have any questions or comments, though I may not be able to get back to you right away. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the general history above the previous owners, as I felt this gives a better introduction to the subject.
 * MOS:SURNAME recommends using only the person's surname after first mention (unless there is ambiguity with multiple people sharing the name). This is felt to set a better encyclopedic tone.
 * ? 25 October to 15 November 1880 Could you clarify what is meant by the leading question mark? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying between such-and-such a date, if the sources only have the purchase date established to a certain period.
 * Who is Mr E Vimpany? Is he related to Henry Charles Vimpany?  I'm not sure why he's mentioned. It also says Edward Pillinger was the brother-in-law of Mr Vimpany but I'm not sure if that's E Vimpany or Henry Charles, and Amelia's maiden name was Little which leads me to think the person was Pillinger's (unmentioned) sister's husband.
 * was found dead in Mr Neil Lewis's run in Milford. Would it be alright to change "run" to "pasture"? Assuming I have that right.  "Run" has an awful lot of meanings and its use for a pasture seems particular to Australia and New Zealand. I realize this article uses Australian English, in terms of spelling and such, but when possible we should use terms that are understood by most English-speakers.
 * [Born] in 1819. On 6 January 1827 either James Head Quested – or his father, James Quested – was sentenced to life imprisonment for the charge of aiding and abetting smugglers. The son would have been 7 or 8 years old at this time, so can we say it was the father?  Is it typical for someone sentenced to transportation to take their family with them?  Would they have travelled together on the same ship or followed afterwards?
 * In relation to the survey Reid commissioned, (original document) 19/2/1863. I'm not sure how 19 February 1863 fits in. The land had not been designated for sale at that point and it later says the survey was conducted 10–14 July 1863. Or are there different accounts, with different dates and spellings of Reid/Read? Or did Reid somehow have a tip the land would be up for sale and commissioned the survey before that was made official?
 * In quoted sections, we generally use square brackets for any inserted material, such as a conversion or ellipses (that's a fancy word for the ... indicating omitted text) which is not part of the actual quote.
 * I used italics for ship names and names of publications, e.g. Mercury newspaper.
 * a report describes docking at Smooth Island during one of the first passages through the Denison Canal. There may be a problem with 'during' which makes it sound like Smooth Island is within the canal (i.e.: that, while passing through the canal, they docked at Smooth Island).  Maybe that should be before/after/following?
 * The family which owned the island (immediately prior to the current owners) acquired it in 1927. I'm not sure what this means. Be careful with words like "current" on Wikipedia, and particularly in a history.  (If reporting something recent, a dated "as of" statement presents fewer problems.)  For example, with The European grey partridge is not established anywhere in Australia, at present. if you can get a date from the reference, use that with "as of" in place of "at present".
 * Arthur Charles Vince's wife is listed as Eva Ellen and Eva Helen. This is likely just a typo so I'd say to go with the more-reliable source.
 * BTW, at the moment there are no other "History of Smooth Island" articles so the disambiguating (Tasmania) is not required in the title. But I understand if you want to keep it for consistency with the main article.

user:Reidgreg Thanks so much for your work here. I'm very grateful for the sincere effort you've put in here. It'll take me a while to go through everything, but I will asap. Thank you! Vitreology (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane Review List
Thank you again for touching base on my talk page. My Wiki-Cochrane project page is still under development, I am hoping to develop this as a tool that will automatically add new Cochrane Reviews as they are published, which may be interesting for medical professionals looking to read the literature + contribute to Wikipedia at the same time. In the meantime, I have started a new section following your feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Cochrane/Cochrane_Review_List#Ocular_and_orbital_conditions. As I mentioned last week, this list was generated in August and is not 100% accurate, but can be a good way to contribute to Wikipedia and a great way for new editors to get their feet wet. If you have any suggestions I welcome them at any time. Thank you again for the message. Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 11) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 12) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 13) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!
 * 14) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 15) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Anterior chamber angle.

User:Willbb234 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

{{Bq|Please add sources for [{WP:V]]. Maybe, among others?}}

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you beat me by like 2 seconds haha Vitreology (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
User talk:El C is on my watchlist and I noticed I'll now be going to ANI. Please reconsider that. To spell it out, do not go to ANI because the result is most unlikely to be what you want. People will start pointing to WP:BOOMERANG and it's likely that unpleasant things will be said. Standing up for what you believe in is good. However, when the issue is a couple of words in an article, and when it has been explained that the wording follows a guideline, there is nothing worth standing up for—the hassle is not worth it. However, this is just my advice and of course you are welcome to go to ANI if wanted. But do you really want to? Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your advice, thank you.
 * Normally, if this was a one-off, I wouldn't bother. Like, one of my main interests on this site are articles falling within WP:MED. For quite some time, I've had the impression that this individual is acting like an overlord and bully within WP:MED, as if WP:DE rules somehow don't apply to him. So, yes, I do think it is worth escalating the matter.
 * However, I hope you also understand that I have no deep seeded animosity towards . Once he starts respectfully treating other editors in the WP:MED space as colleagues/peers/equals, and realised that he also must comply with the fundamental policies of this site, I'm sure we'll get along really well.
 * But so far, he's just not getting the hint, so the matter has to be escalated until he is prepared to change.
 * Also, just so you're aware, it appears the matter has already been raised at WP:ANI here: . The response was completely unsatisfactory, so I'm preparing a submission to WP:AC.


 * However, I completely realise that there are no winners, and only losers, when we go down this path.
 * Therefore I'm going to try to discuss the matter directly with to see if we can come to an understanding, before I enter my submission at WP:AC.
 * As part of these discussions, I'm going to ask to personally unblock.

Thanks again,. Vitreology  talk  10:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Vitreology, just to note that the IP has not just been blocked, but has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor (Long-term abuse/Best known for IP). Whilst this is irrelevant to Doc James' editing (as he did not know that when making the edits), it does mean of course that the IP will not be unblocked at this time. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I saw there were IP discussions during the ANI, but I didn't realise that's what is going on. Many thanks. Vitreology   talk  12:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

that's not why I blocked the IP. They were blocked for disruptive editing. I was not familiar with the background of the dispute at the time. Vitreology, I already answered on my talk page, but just so you know, you need four not three reverts in order to violate 3RR. But again, not that it matters now, as such a report would be deemed at this time. El_C 14:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There were actually at least 5 reverts. But I'm slowly beginning to agree that the matter is becoming stale.

Vitreology  talk  15:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If starts to WP:ONLYREVERT when absolutely necessary, and to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I am happy to drop the WP:STICK and WP:GETOVERIT.
 * Four reverts in 24 hours, that is. Anyway, my problem was with false blance, with you basically claiming: you've blocked the IP for disruption, but they were also involved in an edit warring dispute with another editor, so that editor should have been blocked, too. El_C 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All good. Enjoy your day. Vitreology   talk  15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One needs consensus to bring about a change rather than consensus to keep what is already existing. Rest of the details are here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Smooth Island (Tasmania)

 * Hi Vitreology; In addition to the c/e I've done a major cleanup, re-sectioning and rearrangement of this article, I hope you like the changes I've made; good luck with your planned FA AC nom. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , This is great, thank you. Any suggestions regarding the actual content of the article, and why I could do to make it a strong FA candidate from that perspective? Vitreology   talk  04:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I like a challenge (sometimes)! I can only recommend reading the FA criteria and possibly some similar island articles (Caroline Island and Ford Island are currently FAs). A-Class criteria are slightly less demanding than FA but are usually reviewed by WikiProjects. Perhaps Good Article status will be a nice stepping stone to aim for here; it's not too onerous and is a good way to get other editors' opinions. I hope that's useful; good luck. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  06:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message
The to-do item was not in alphabetical order, for a start hardly anyone goes to that page - it is very neglected unvisited page. No one is going to even see it let alone help

Having spent the last 5 years or more on your island as a WP:SPA, perhaps it should be much more relevent to get people to help you with WP:GA and WP:FA for your items - 'to do' is not the place.

To clarify that - you have put an amazing amount of time into your island, to the point that some might be concerned about WP:COI, WP:OWN as well of course in comparison to all the other islands of Tasmania - WP:UNDUE - and indeed the SPA already identified.

So you want help. The best is to see that you are able to get to WP:FA and or WP:GA - they do not belong anywhere near the ancient to do page:


 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do


 * March last year maybe - https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-01&end=2019-12&pages=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do


 * In general, to reach out to sympathetic editors who could help you - you need to try the avenues of GA and FA. To do is indeed a lost cause as far as the Australian project is concerned.
 * I had problems with the undue emphasis some years ago, so I am not one to even consider the issues that I see wrong - the Tasmanian project has diminishing edit rates, and the larger range of islands (and their low level of attention in the last 10 years) that really need help in so many ways is where I understand the improvement of wikipedia will happen, not in single sites or locations.


 * But in view of your really sincere dedication and effort (and from your talk above it is possible to see how other editors have given you acclaim for your efforts), I do believe that a mentor in the GA and FA process is the way to go.  Very important to understand that a good mentor in the process can give you good help to acheive higher status for the article(s) about the Island. Best wishes, and best of luck
 * In case I have lost you on that lot have a look at some australian island articles that have got to featured status:
 * FA - There are 5,706 featured articles out of 5,997,332 articles on the English Wikipedia


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island_(Houtman_Abrolhos)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Portland


 * the previous level - GA -  5,997,333 articles on Wikipedia, 30,515 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 197)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Arran


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Howe_Island


 * and check out the full set - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Islands

From what I have seen - you are there, you simply have to go through the hoops.

So to not answer your original comment at my talk page, get on with the GA and the FA - that might get you interacting with others who can actually give you a better way of seeing how wikipedia works. JarrahTree 10:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you very much for your constructive and sincere replies. (I've seen about 5 replies come through whilst I've been typing this, sorry for taking so long!) Regarding how useful the 'to do' list was ever going to be, I completely understand your point. I'm quite interested in the other things you've had to say. Whilst I'm highly receptive to your feedback, I'd appreciate some clarification: Regarding WP:SPA: 63% of my lifetime edits have had nothing to do with Smooth Island or it's it's history. Since ~2014, I have done my utmost to be absolutely scrupulous with respect to WP:VER and WP:RELY, which is reflected in the high number of references (as you previously mentioned). Regarding WP:NPOV, I've always been extremely careful to neutrally and objectively report only the facts within each citation and to refrain from any adding any of my own embellishment. I do not claim to WP:OWN any of the content - on the contrary, I've demonstrated that I'm actively seeking help with research, copy-editing, etc etc. If it hasn't been obvious, my goal has been to make these two pages (1, 2) a far more collaborative exercise. Regarding WP:UNDUE: I had my way, all islands around the world would receive the same care and attention on Wikipedia. I get more satisfaction after making one article absolutely perfect than if I had split my time evenly into 'all' island articles - I wouldn't feel I'd done any article justice.
 * Please don't take any of this as defensiveness or a reluctance to take what you've said on-board - I'm just trying to show that I've been conscious of all those policies since the first day I started working on this. I'm just trying to understand exactly what I've done wrong (I realise you've been through this yourself, but if you could provide any specifics, it would help a lot).
 * I take your points about WP:FA and WP:GA (and mentors): I should have gone down that path a while ago.
 * I really appreciate the kindness, thought and effort you've put into your response . Thank you. Vitreology   talk  11:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the kindness, thought and effort you've put into your response . Thank you. Vitreology   talk  11:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the kindness, thought and effort you've put into your response . Thank you. Vitreology   talk  11:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Long time
Thank you very much for your very considered response. As to my 'tags' were more thrown around recklessly, I must say that wasnt really needed to be answered in such detail, but thanks for going to the trouble - please from this point please ignore all my tags of the past, we have to get you on the road through the process. I have emailed my mobile number if you want real time real life support at any point but remember I am at 8+. But thats up to you. There are nuances of the processes ( you might note that I have not personally been involved in creating a GA or FA, but have made comments at a very few). I am skeptical of the processes, but hey some people really have quite a lot of enjoyment getting into the list, all the more relevent as 0.1 Percent (FA) as we reach the 6 million edit mark... . Well worth reading the GA introduction first.

My first suspicion is your format on the history article might be seen as eccentric... for instance. But there is a lot more, which ever way we get through all of this, it will be worth it. And in fact a learning experience for me - although I have edited a vast amount, I know I have about 4 to 5 article I would like to take into GA status this year. What I find extraordinarily frustrating is in most cases the editors reviewing know nothing about the subject in the first place, they are simply reading from the point of the reader... Like my cataracts might be benign at this stage, but for me to be able to get a handle on specialist medical literature I would need more than my tertiary education to actually comprehend the current material. So for me the islands - the annoying thing about Tassie islands is in the main it has been User:Maias who quite relentlessly 'milked' the islands for bird reasons, yet my friends from UTAS were geomorphology and history people - and the problem with many islands is that they are inadequately covered for WP:SHIPWRECKS for instance, there was a tassie shipwreck expert but he dropped out years ago. The thing about island ecology, that is another... So its never straight forward... JarrahTree 11:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much for your reply. I'm not quite following your point about the field of expertise of the editors. Are you making the point that editors are using an unrelated criteria to assess an island article? (eg, assessing the article's coverage in the context of birds, geomorphology, history, shipwrecks, etc...rather than assessing the article's coverage with respect to being an island?). I understand that the format of the history article is quite unorthodox - creating collapsible 'centuries' was only ever intended to be a temporary measure to make the article more easy to manage as an editor. The article is most certainly verbose and needs condensing. However, I've found that I'm too deeply involved with the research and cannot see the forest for the trees anymore, so I've been looking for a third party to help me summarise the material. Vitreology   talk  03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

my note about editors, is that many editors on wikipedia know nothing about the subject of an article they are 'fixing', editing, or doing mechanical things to... - the very good aspect of the medicine area is that there are the equivalent of peer group assessment occurs, as to local island and east coast tassie, it could be the editor for ga level might be a land bound not native speaking (english as not first language) editor from inner united states or europe... which is why they are more for the sense of the reading of the article and zilch even less than knowledge of where australia might be.

less even where tasmania is...  to get a handle on ga - best trawl through the articles from the link given. JarrahTree 04:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service
Hi ! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:


 * 1) Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
 * 2) Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
 * 3) Paste  underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
 * 4) Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-mortem interval
Having done some work on the area, and started stages of death, I have moved the article back as you suggested. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the high quality work you've done on this article. It looks much better now. Vitreology   talk  22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian ophthalmologist has been nominated for renaming
Category:Wikipedian ophthalmologist has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)